Attempts by the House of Commons to draw a line under the expenses scandal
have been dealt a blow by 80 MPs who have defied demands to repay hundreds
of thousands of pounds.

The number of appeals against the findings of the audit of MPs’ claims was far higher than the Commons authorities had anticipated, threatening the timetable for making repayment details public.

Around 200 MPs are thought to have been asked to return money from claims with around a third of those submitting appeals by the 3pm deadline yesterday.

Angry MPs hit out at demands to return four and five figure sums, with one accusing Sir Thomas Legg, who led the audit team, of acting “dishonestly”.

Sources had indicated that around 50 initial appeals were anticipated following the investigation into five years of claims, of which at least 20 were expected to be withdrawn before next Wednesday’s deadline for submitting supporting paperwork.

Sir Paul Kennedy, the former high court judge who has been asked to hear cases in which MPs dispute the Legg findings, had hoped to complete his work by the middle of January.

But the scale of the defiance threatens to overwhelm Sir Paul, with belligerent MPs angry at what they see as the Legg review’s retrospective rulings unlikely to withdraw their appeals.

Roger Gale, a Tory backbencher, accused Sir Thomas of “knowingly” releasing false information after he was asked to return £2,100 in mobile phone bills and nearly £400 in rent for a London flat.

The Thanet North MP said that he had subsidised his work by £250,000, but promised to abide by Sir Paul’s final ruling.

"Am I angry? Yes, I am. My reputation matters to me. I have been doing this job for 27 years. It has cost us well over a quarter of a million pounds out of our own pocket," he said

"If I have to write out a cheque for £2,500 I will do it, but as a matter of principle this is wrong.

"Just because some people have done things that are wrong, the rest of us should not be punished."

Mr Gale insisted his claims for a mobile phone for work use had been "entirely proper" under the rules at the time, and denied Sir Thomas’ ruling that he had accidentally claimed for 13 months’ rent at his London flat rather than 12 last year, saying that an invoice had simply been filed early.

He added: "I claimed for it at the end of March and dated it April. He knows that and I think that is dishonest.

“I told him the situation and he is still knowingly releasing false information."

A spokeswoman for Sir Thomas declined to comment on the remarks.

Two MPs with the largest repayment requests, Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Essex North, and Jeremy Browne, who represents Taunton for the Liberal Democrats, are appealing over demands for more than £63,000 and nearly £18,000.

Both deny any wrongdoing and have pledged to return the money if Sir Paul confirms the Legg rulings.

Mr Jenkin said: "I am lodging an appeal. There is no question being raised by Sir Thomas about my integrity and honesty. I will pay back whatever is finally decided."

Frank Field, the former welfare minister, is appealing against a demand to repay £7,000 in housekeeping costs and other household bills, and Frank Cook, Labour MP for Stockton North, is challenging a request for £600 for a fridge.

All of the main party leaders had urged MPs to accept Sir Thomas’ findings, amid fears that the row over The Daily Telegraph’s disclosures of widespread abuse of the expenses system could cloud the general election campaign unless a line was drawn at the start of the year.

As well as dragging out the scandal, the mass resistance is certain to undermine Sir Thomas’ authority, and raise questions in the public’s mind over how far MPs are committed to reforming their discredited system of expenses and allowances.

The Legg review probed expenses dating back to the 2004/5 financial year of all 646 current MPs, along with another 107 who stood down or lost their seats in the 2005 general election.

The sums demanded range from a few pounds to the £63,250 which Mr Jenkin paid in rent for a property owned by his sister-in-law.